Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2018 02:56:56 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: gnome@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 227761] print/freetype2: Fonts aren't correctly rendered with 2.9 Message-ID: <bug-227761-6497-OgvGJVzSyD@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-227761-6497@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-227761-6497@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D227761 --- Comment #33 from lightside <lightside@gmx.com> --- (In reply to comment #32) > Yes that's right at the moment. But trying to get a cleared one... Possible to use following Python script to create test.pdf file, based on TrueType font.ttf in the same directory and installed print/py-reportlab po= rt (tested for v3.2.0): -8<-- import reportlab.rl_config #reportlab.rl_config.warnOnMissingFontGlyphs =3D 0 from reportlab.pdfbase import pdfmetrics from reportlab.pdfbase.ttfonts import TTFont pdfmetrics.registerFont(TTFont("EmbeddedFont", "font.ttf")) from reportlab.pdfgen import canvas text=3D"The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog" c =3D canvas.Canvas("test.pdf") size=3D32 c.setFont("EmbeddedFont", size) c.drawString(20, 800, "EmbeddedFont, %s:" % size) c.drawString(20, 760, text) size=3D26 c.setFont("Helvetica", size) c.drawString(20, 720, "Helvetica, %s:" % size) c.drawString(20, 680, text) c.showPage() c.save() -->8- % python2.7 create_pdf.py % convert -verbose -alpha remove test.pdf image.jpg But other font types may need other methods to use. (In reply to comment #32) > Ok, does it help if I upload the debug output of freetype2? I guess, that the simple answer is no, unless this was asked by concrete developer, who may understand such debug output and try to fix something, without actual pdf file or font(s) to test. But you can try to provide such debug output for VER-2-8-1 (where there was= no issue): http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/freetype/freetype2.git/tag/?h=3DVER-2-8-1 VER-2-9-1 (where issue was found): http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/freetype/freetype2.git/tag/?h=3DVER-2-9-1 and latest master commit on (in case of extended debug output for latest development version and possible fix to test): http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/freetype/freetype2.git/commit/ if such developer asked about this. Probably, other developers also may find some useful information in it, if freetype2 debug output is available for n= ew issue. But I can't say about private information for such output. So, you m= ay need to determine this by yourself (or ask others about this). Another answer was "I need a PDF (unencrypted) or its embedded fonts that I= can further analyze.", which was said by Werner Lemberg:=20 https://savannah.nongnu.org/bugs/?53739#comment2 after some pdffonts output on: https://savannah.nongnu.org/bugs/?53739#comment1 and, I guess, developer didn't have such embedded font(s) available to test= on this stage. Personally, I provided some freetype2 debug output for previous issue, afte= r it was confirmed for print/ghostscript9-agpl-base v9.16 and print/freetype2 v2= .9.1 on FreeBSD. Later it was confirmed, that previous issue was fixed after upd= ate of print/ghostscript9-agpl-base to 9.23 version in ports r472239. The Ghostscript v9.23 was used by Werner Lemberg to test for provided anonyme_visitenkarte.pdf file, which is possible reason why previous issue wasn't confirmed (the print/ghostscript9-agpl-base was v9.16 at this time): https://savannah.nongnu.org/bugs/?53739#comment3 Need to mention again, that (automated) git bisect found 75cb071b3fbfa2315c5d458fee2bb465a14568ae commit (see comment #3): https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/freetype/freetype2.git/commit/?id=3D75cb0= 71b3fbfa2315c5d458fee2bb465a14568ae There is some patch to test (attachment #193012) for previous issue. Possib= le to test this for new issue, if repeat commands in previous comment(s), but = for new test.pdf, instead of previous anonyme_visitenkarte.pdf (may need to cha= nge values for TEST_SOURCE and expected_checksum variables in test.sh script fr= om attachment #194200). The git bisect may find another commit, of course. The current latest Ghostscript release version is 9.23 (https://ghostscript.com). If developers still use such release version, th= en there is a possibility, that they can confirm new issue and try to investig= ate, propose some fix(es), in which case need to test development version(s) of affected software, but currently only reporter(s) may confirm (and try to f= ix) this, if I understood this correctly. Sorry for the long comment. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. You are on the CC list for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-227761-6497-OgvGJVzSyD>